[Barrin92]

I'd like to push back on that somewhat. While it's true that the cost for a lot of basic necessities has gone up there is a lot wrong in American culture when it comes to lifestyles and savings.

The size of the average American home has approximately doubled since the 70s. This has driven up prices, increased energy cost, increased travel distance due to the constraints it imposes on density and so on.

There is no real explanation for why any given American would be worse off by doing away with this kind of consumption. The same is true for say nutrition. American healthcare costs are high, but Americans also live exceptionally unhealthy lives. They commute too much by car, they walk too little, they are too obese.

Americans also appear to love going out to eat much more than people in many other places, buy a new phone frequently, have a lot of subscriptions, and it adds up. Elderly parents are often placed in expensive care rather than taken care off by families, students go to expensive colleges and pay rent instead of living at home and attending a local public university, and so on.

You can talk a long time about the inequality in the American economy and the fruits of labour, which are indeed less evenly distributed than in other places, but this doesn't change the fact that given the standard of income and wealth of the average American household, everyone could live insanely more sustainable and financially secure lives by adopting a different culture.

[danans]

> this doesn't change the fact that given the standard of income and wealth of the average American household, everyone could live insanely more sustainable and financially secure lives by adopting a different culture.

I wholeheartedly agree, but the reality is that, today, unless you are willing and able to pay a large premium for "luxuries" like walkable neighborhoods and workplaces, the average American gets market segmented into the excessively large housing and excessive long commutes with no transit options.

The best way to address the underlying lifestyle issues is to make healthier lifestyles more affordable, but there are a large set of interests, from advocates of exclusionary zoning in city councils, to the fossil fuel industry lobbying heavily against good public transit, who are arrayed against any of the positive changes you suggest.

[SQueeeeeL]

Remember, city governments aren't there to help the population of the city, they're there to help the people in town with the means to engage in local politics. This normally means business owners and home owners.

There is a lot of research pointing to the benefits of walk-able cities and denser housing, but it will upset the power holders, so most of the population must live in expensive misery.

[AWildC182]

I think it's also worth noting that yes a lot of people want huge homes and conspicuous consumption, but that group is pushing up costs on everyone else who doesn't. Housing costs are growing massively as a fraction of income so with incomes stagnant, every year people have a little less to pay towards what they need and want beyond just having a home, regardless of size.